Journal of Urban Mathematics Education
July 2011, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 75–97
©JUME. http://education.gsu.edu/JUME
Preservice Teachers’ Changing
Conceptions About Teaching Mathematics
in Urban Elementary Classrooms
Mindy Kalchman
DePaul University
In this article, the author reports on a project intended to gain insight into the effect a specific constructivist learning opportunity might have on preservice teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about the value of conceptual-based instructional methods for urban children. The project context was an elementary mathematics methods course; the weekly learning opportunity asked students to write about an
authentic mathematical experience that they had had during the week. Students
were required not only to summarize the experience but also to explain how they
solved the problem in ways that did not involve a school-taught algorithm or a
calculator. The author argues that completing this assignment resulted in more
than building preservice teachers’ mathematical knowledge and skills; it also
provided them with an opportunity to learn within a constructivist framework, and
to see that learning is about the relevance of curriculum and the meaning individuals make of it rather than the demographics of learners.
KEYWORDS: elementary teacher education, constructivist teaching, mathematics
teacher education, teacher beliefs, urban education
romoting mathematics learning environments that privilege students’ conceptual development over the ―traditional‖ rule-based, procedural methods of instruction has been a primary focus for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) for over two decades (NCTM, 1989, 2000). The enriched
learning opportunities for students who experience a conceptual-based learning
environment are well documented in the mathematics education literature (Fitzgerald & Bouck, 1993; Hiebert, 2003; Spillane & Zeuli, 1999; Sutton & Krueger,
2002). Students in such environments often excel with respect to greater flexibility, sophistication, confidence, and competence with both routine and non-routine
problems and computations (Donovan & Bransford, 2005; National Research
Council [NRC], 2001). The pedagogical methods that foster such conceptual
learning, however, are not routinely reaching and/or being implemented in urban
classrooms (Berry, 2003; McKinney, Chappell, Berry, & Hickman, 2009). Too
often in urban classrooms an ―initiation-response-evaluation‖ (IRE) pattern (Hie-
P
MINDY KALCHMAN is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education in the College
of Education, DePaul University, 2320 N. Kenmore Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60614; email: [email protected]. In her research, she focuses on the interaction between the demands of classroom pedagogy and problem solving outside of school, with implications for preservice teachers
and school-age children.
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
bert & Stigler, 2000) remains the dominant instructional practice (Lubienski,
2002; Strutchens & Silver, 2000). Here, students listen to what their teachers say
and do, try to remember it, and then attempt to parrot it back on homework assignments and tests (Heuser, 2000). Within this method of instruction, there is
little emphasis on developing conceptual understandings by having students explain their thinking, make conjectures, or discuss ideas and strategies (Franke,
Kazemi, & Battey, 2007). Thus, many teachers in urban classrooms, as well as
others who employ such instructional methods, should rethink their pedagogical
practices to keep their students competitive when it comes to mathematics (Ladson-Billings, 1997; NRC, 2001).
Putting the onus on teachers is not meant to be punitive. Rather, it is meant
to self-empower teachers by acknowledging that within the context of schools,
teacher quality is the most direct measure of students’ academic achievement and
success (Brown, 2002; Haberman, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Steinberg &
Kincheloe, 2004). In other words, effective teaching matters! Bringing about
change in urban teachers’ pedagogical methods and practices, however, must begin by addressing their beliefs about what constitutes effective mathematics instruction for their students (Klein, 1998; Steele & Widman, 1997). Here, beliefs
are defined as convictions that resist change and are not necessarily contingent
upon either reason or evidence (Watters & Ginns, 1997). Such beliefs have been
found to be far more influential than knowledge in determining how individuals
organize and define tasks and problems and are stronger predictors of behavior
(Pajares, 1992). Moreover, it has been argued that beliefs about ―good‖ teaching
are well established by the time students get to college (Grossman, 1990; Pajares,
1992).
Therefore, it is important for teacher educators to ensure that preservice
teachers’ incoming beliefs about teaching are explored, discussed, and revised (if
necessary). This recommendation is especially relevant for prospective teachers’
initial beliefs about teaching in urban classrooms because research has shown that
preservice teachers believe that urban students require mathematics instruction
that focuses on basic skills (Gilbert, 1997; Walker, 2007), rote teaching and learning (Anyon, 1997; Breitborde, 2002), and repetition (Walker, 2007). Addressing
this cultural bias among preservice teachers is critical in light of the previously
mentioned literature on the persistence of ineffective pedagogical methods and
practices in urban mathematics classrooms and the resilient nature of established
beliefs. Moreover, interventions aimed at preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics in urban schools must result in authentic conceptual change by
first confronting their original perspectives (Harrington & Enochs, 2009; Klein,
1998; Steele & Widman, 1997). Without such an authentic struggle, many preservice teachers may revert to teaching in the traditional ways they experienced in
their own schooling rather than implementing the sort of conceptual-based in-
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
76
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
structional approaches they are taught and exposed to in their teacher education
programs (Ebby, 2000; Merseth, 1993).
Accordingly, the purpose of the project reported here was to gain insight
and perspective into the effect constructivist learning opportunities might have on
preservice teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about the value of conceptual-based instructional methods for urban elementary mathematics students. The context for
the project was an undergraduate elementary mathematics methods course at an
urban university where the College of Education has an explicit mission of preparing teachers for urban, multicultural settings. Specifically, preservice teachers
were given a weekly assignment for which they had to write about an authentic
mathematical experience they had during the week between classes. They had to
write a summary of the situation as well as explain how they solved the problem
in ways that did not involve a school-taught algorithm or a calculator. Completing
this assignment resulted in more than building preservice teachers’ mathematical
knowledge and skills; it also provided them with an opportunity to learn within a
framework consistent with the NCTM, and to see that learning is about the relevance of curriculum and the meaning individuals make of it rather than the demographics (e.g., race, gender, class, etc.) of learners.
In this article, I first outline the theoretical perspective for the methods
course I teach, followed by a description of how I address constructivism as a pedagogical framework. I then share the structure of my methods course before introducing the participating preservice teachers, data sources, and methods for
analysis. I then present the results of my findings and provide examples of preservice teachers’ work. Finally, I elaborate on the results in the context of preservice
teachers’ changing perceptions about the value of conceptual-based pedagogical
methods and practices in urban mathematics classrooms.
My Mathematics Methods Course
Theoretical Perspective of the Methods Course
The previously noted literature supports a vital and practical purpose for this
project. Nonetheless, the original motivation for it came from the in-class experiences I was repeatedly having with preservice teachers surrounding their attitudes and beliefs about the value of constructivism for teaching mathematics in
urban classrooms. I decided to examine these experiences systematically and to
study the effects that the design of my methods course might have on preservice
teachers’ attitudes and perceptions about teaching mathematics in urban settings.
Constructivism (defined later) is the central theoretical and organizing perspective for my methods course; I introduce it introduced at the beginning of the
quarter as a general theory for how people learn, and one that informs myriad in-
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
77
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
structional practices in mathematics teaching and learning and other disciplines.
However, despite a general affinity for constructivism as a framework for practice, preservice teachers often challenge the value of it for urban children’s mathematics learning experiences. Specifically, preservice teachers too often contend
that urban children need to be ―kept on task,‖ motivated, and taught in ways that
constructivist-influenced classrooms cannot and do not support (Jepsen, 2009).
Contrary to this popular belief, research shows that urban children and
youth do indeed thrive in constructivist learning environments because of the
theoretical and practical foundations such environments provide (Griffin, Case, &
Siegler, 1994; McNair, 2000). Therefore, one of the most important components
of my methods course is not only to expose preservice teachers to literature that
supports constructivist learning environments but also to ensure that the preservice teachers themselves have mathematical learning experiences that substantiate
the general value of constructivism in teaching and learning. This means that it is
not enough for me to talk to preservice teachers about the value of constructivism
for pedagogical decision-making; that would merely be modeling and sanctioning
an IRE strategy of instruction. Rather, I must ensure opportunities for authentic
constructivist learning opportunities as part of preservice teachers’ overall course
learning experiences.
Discussing Constructivism as a Framework for Pedagogical Practice
Early in the quarter, I introduce the origins of constructivism as a theoretical
construct most often attributed to Piaget’s theory of child development (Piaget,
1952). We discuss the evolution of constructivism in the context of criticisms of
Piaget’s theory, including challenges to the universality of his stages and the undefined role for a teacher in children’s learning (e.g., Laurenco & Machado,
1996). We then look at the ways these challenges to Piaget’s theory have led to
diverse interpretations and adaptations of constructivism for mathematics education, most specifically by those situated in sociocultural frameworks for learning
(e.g., Cobb, 2006; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1997; Lampert, 2003; Vygotsky, 1962).
A particularly robust theoretical contribution of Piaget’s that we revisit throughout the course relates to a basic definition of constructivism. In this definition, constructivism is described as the process of cognitive structures changing, and thus individuals learning, as they are exposed to external, authentic environments and integrate
information by either assimilating or accommodating it (Bollinger, 2006). Admittedly,
this is an extremely oversimplified and abbreviated definition. However, two important aspects of it are presently relevant. First, the reference to individuals implies that
the theory does not discriminate based on age, race, gender, domicile, or any other
demographic data. Rather, research shows consistent developmental progressions
within children across cultures (Okamoto, Brenner, & Curtis, 2002), social class (Grif-
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
78
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
fin, Case & Siegler, 1994), and so on. These progressions are not necessarily seen uniformly with respect to the timing and rate of achievement, but the progressions do
appear to occur in a predictable and structured fashion.
Second, interactions with external, authentic environments are critical to a learner’s development (Bollinger, 2006; Webb, 1980). In typical school settings, students
of all ages and demographics engage with mathematics in ways that mimic, model, or
even demonstrate the mathematical demands of the ―real world‖ (Ninnes, 2000;
Sundberg & Goodman, 2005). However, situations that reflect the ―real worlds‖ of
students are not the same as authentic situations that are in real-time, and are unique to
and current in their lives (Gravemeijer, 1997). These latter, real-time situations are
found in children’s mathematical activities such as shopping, playing sports, and cooking, and require spontaneous and functional applications of mathematical knowledge
and skills.
Having a personal connection with curriculum in order for effective learning to
take place is neither a new proposition, nor attributable to Piaget. Indeed, Dewey
wrote about it over a century ago (Dewey, 1902). Dewey’s ideas along with those that
fall within the framework of situated learning and cognition are also discussed extensively in my methods course. These perspectives are elaborated on in class as we extend the general argument to include the need for mathematics curriculum to be personally meaningful in order to motivate children—in particular, urban children ―whose
life experiences often are farthest from the traditional school curriculum experience‖
(McNair, 2000, p. 552).
Structure of the Methods Course
The relevant methods course met once per week for 10 weeks. Each class session was 3 hours, and had time allocated for a variety of learning opportunities, including the discussion of field experiences, assigned readings, and doing mathematicsrelated activities including the Math in the Everyday Life assignment (discussed later).
Also, independent of class time, individual students (i.e., preservice teachers) attended
an assigned field placement once per week for 10 weeks. Each visit lasted for approximately 90 minutes. During these visits, students were required to go beyond observing, and had to plan for and teach mathematics lessons in collaboration with and independent of their cooperating teachers.
The Research Project
Participants
Twenty-three undergraduate elementary education students participated in the
project (20 women; 3 men). Eighteen of them were seniors and five were juniors. Two
of the men identified as Latino, and one as African American. Eight of the women
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
79
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
identified as Latina, four as African American, and eight as Caucasian. The mean age
was 21, and 15 of the students indentified as urban by birth and 3 by current domicile.
As mentioned, our College of Education has an explicit mission for preparing teachers to teach in urban, multicultural settings, with an emphasis on serving
the poor and disenfranchised. Thus, all students must engage with field experiences in schools that reflect this demographic. However, most students also
spend time in contrasting environments including suburban schools, independent
secular schools, public schools in middle-class neighborhoods, and parochial
schools. The methods course described here was among the last of the courses
preservice teachers take before student teaching. Thus, most had been in at least
one school with a population of low-income families, an independent parochial
school, and a public school in a middle-class municipal or suburban neighborhood. For this particular course, students were individually placed in schools with
a population where they either needed to accumulate experience and time, or were
most interested in ultimately teaching. Accordingly, 13 of the preservice teachers
were placed in urban, ―high-needs‖ schools with respect to serving low-income,
historically marginalized and underserved students.
Data Sources and Analyses
As Ebby (2000) points out, ―a constructivist perspective focuses on the
process of coming to know rather than on only the outcomes‖ (p. 75). Accordingly, I used ethnographic methods of data collection and analysis in order to gain a
deeper understanding of participants’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs that drive
their decisions (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). The study involved three
main data sources collected throughout the quarter. Two sources used for analysis
were instructor-initiated whole class discussions, and a review of preservice
teachers’ written work. The Math in Everyday Life (MIEL) assignment described
next was used to contextualize and analyze students’ learning and comments. Details of the analytic methods are elaborated within descriptions of each data
source.
The MIEL assignment. The purpose of the MIEL assignment was to provide
each student with the opportunity to identify and then to do mathematics in authentic and personally relevant ways that reflect the values and premises embedded in constructivism. Each week, students submitted an MIEL, which was an
account of having done some mathematics that was real and necessary in their
non-teaching lives (Kalchman, 2009). Typical contexts included tipping, exercising, dieting, shopping, cooking, and paying bills. Preservice teachers were required to communicate the relevant situations and to show how they did the requisite mathematics, and encouraged not to use calculators and formal, school-taught
algorithms. Instead, they were encouraged to apply strategies that were contextdriven and situation-dependent and responsive to the circumstances at hand. For
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
80
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
example, it is not typically convenient to pull out a calculator or pencil and paper
when sitting in the back of a taxi trying to calculate a tip. Thus, students had to
describe and explain their thinking, and communicate the steps they took to solve
their problems. Finally, they were encouraged to ask other people how they would
solve the same problems.
Then, each week students either voluntarily or at my request shared their
MIEL with the class. I typically asked those whose problems presented unique
challenges and required some alternative thinking. Furthermore, if possible, I tried
to choose submissions that would have some relevance to an urban child’s lived
experiences, not only to support our College’s mission but also to address the
educational needs of urban children. Groups of preservice teachers then engaged
with the mathematics of the selected MIEL and shared their solutions and strategies. Then, as a class, we discussed the constructivist processes and implications
of each group’s problem solving strategies. For example, we explored particular
features of the process such as how difficult it was to think like and interpret
problems like someone else and how surprising it was that there were so many
ways to solve a seemingly simple and routine problem.
Instructor-initiated whole class discussions. Twice in the quarter, I initiated
a whole class discussion specifically about the relevance of constructivism for
discrete populations such as urban students. Significant to the resulting conversations was the fact that in my methods course we do not delve into the unique
complexities of teaching and learning in urban classrooms as a course topic per
se. These issues are confronted in other courses specific to the foundations of
education, and I expect students to come to my classes with some experience with
and knowledge of the pertinent issues. Rather, in our discussions, we focused on
the implications of different learning cultures and environments, rather than on
the environmental and cultural circumstances that necessitate the conversation.
The first discussion was initiated in the second week of the course following
a lecture-style overview of constructivism as per the theoretical perspective previously described. I opened this conversation by asking students if they believed
that putting constructivist theory into practice with all children in all mathematics
classes is both plausible and desirable, and to elaborate on and justify their beliefs. The ensuing conversation was completely organic to their ideas. The second
discussion was in week 10 of the quarter after we discussed literature related to
changes preservice teachers make in their beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics as a result of their experiences in a methods course with highly integrated field experiences (Ebby, 2000). I opened this conversation by asking them
to consider and share any changes they experienced over the course of the quarter
as they relate to teaching and learning mathematics for themselves and for children. I asked them to refer specifically to and comment on different student populations and on different instructional styles they had observed in their field expe-
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
81
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
rience for the mathematics methods course and in their teacher preparation program in general.
These conversations were audiotaped. Transcriptions were coded to reflect
categories of initial beliefs about the pedagogical needs of urban children: initial
beliefs of not believing in constructivism (IN), initial beliefs of being undecided
about the value of constructivism (IU), and initial beliefs of believing in constructivism (IY). Codes for the second conversation involved two levels of categorization. First, transcripts were coded to reflect students’ beliefs at the end of the
course: outgoing beliefs not favoring constructivism (ON), undecided outgoing
beliefs (OU), and outgoing views of believing in the value of constructivism
(OY). Transcripts then were coded to reflect conceptual shifts attributed to a particular aspect of the course:  MIEL,  FE (field experiences),  CD (class discussions), and combinations of the three.
To analyze the data, I first looked quantitatively at the number of relevant
comments the preservice teachers made in each of the categories during both
 Then,
structured discussions.
I attributed each commentto individuals in order to
account for each student’s pre- and post-quarter positions. I then coded the reasons they gave for maintaining or changing their perspectives and recorded those
to reflect each contribution.
Review of preservice teachers’ written work. Students were not required to
write about their perspectives on urban mathematics education per se. But because
of the explicit mission of the College, many of them were completing their field
experiences in urban classrooms; therefore, the topic of urban classrooms appeared with some frequency in their written work, especially toward the end of
the quarter.
In addition to the MIEL, preservice teachers had two other written assignments. The first was their ―Weekly Contribution.‖ For the first 10 to 15 minutes
of each class session, students wrote short pieces about a topic, or topics, they
hoped to discuss in the forthcoming class session. The topics they wrote about
were at their discretion and ranged from those related to the readings and/or their
field experiences to relevant current events. These pieces were coded using the
same codes previously described if content warranted it. However, each code was
preceded with a ―WC‖ to indicate that the comment was made in the context of
the Weekly Contribution. To illustrate, if a student mentioned an experience in a
classroom that affected or contributed to a change in his or her perspective on pedagogy for urban children, the code would read ―WC-  FE.‖
The second written assignment was a final essay describing and reflecting
on a mathematics lesson the preservice teachers taught in their field-placement
experience. Of particular relevance to this project were sections on ―Pedagogical

Choices‖ and ―What You Learned About Teaching
and Learning Elementary Mathematics.‖ In the case of the former, they were required to explain and justify the
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
82
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
sort of pedagogical approach they intended to use in the pre-planning of their upcoming lessons (Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 2002). This assignment was due in the
final week of the quarter; thus, the pedagogical choices they made were significant. If the pedagogical choice reflected a constructivist perspective, then the entry was coded as PCC; it was coded as PCT for a choice of traditional pedagogy.
A ―U‖ was added to each code if the lesson was specific to an urban population.
The reflection section of the final papers were also coded for relevance to preservice teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about the pedagogical needs of urban children. These codes were consistent with those reflecting change previously described but were prefaced with ―FP‖ for final paper. I coded and counted the
number of relevant written remarks made in preservice teachers’ Weekly Contributions and again in their final assignments.
After establishing a quantitative basis for believing that the MIEL assignments were influential in the changes preservice teachers made in their perspectives on teaching mathematics in urban settings, I began reviewing their comments and written remarks qualitatively. For example, I looked for comparative
statements, oral or written, that included before and after remarks and the context
and timing for any conceptual epiphanies. I looked for comments they made regarding their observations of instruction in urban mathematics classrooms and
how those observations conflicted with or supported our class discussions and
their own constructivist experiences.
Findings
Sample MIEL Assignments
The following MIEL samples provide context, and are representative of the
sort of MIEL assignments I selected to use as in-class activities. The mathematics
activities were challenging enough for elementary-level children, involved a variety of conceptual strands (NCTM, 2000), and may have resonated more with
preservice teachers as urban experiences than submissions that focused on more
generic tasks such as tipping, cooking, or banking.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 are examples of MIELs. In Figure 1, a student shared her
process for finding a primary care physician within a certain radius of her home.
She used Chicago’s block system to calculate distances. Indeed, the process is a
bit dizzying for someone unfamiliar with the city. However, calculating distances
and giving and receiving directions using the block system is standard for Chicagoans and an essential code for all who live there. The mathematics involved was
diverse and ranged from standard computation to two-dimensional algebraic
thinking as the student considered traveling both south and west on the grid.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
83
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
Math Everywhere
This week my husband and I searched online for a primary care physician for myself. In the selection process, the website instructed us to indicate
how far we would be willing to travel to visit the doctor’s office. The question
was written in miles (5,10,15,20,25), so I had to convert to city blocks (since
we don’t “talk” miles in the city).
First, I had to remember that 1mile equals 8 city blocks. Therefore, I
had to multiply 8 by 5 which is 50. Next, since I live on the 60th block south, I
had to add forty to sixty. I knew that 4+6 = 10, add 0+0 = 0, which is 100. So
since I was willing to travel to the 100th block in Chicago, I continued on to
10 miles.
First, I multiplied 8 by 10. Since I know that any number times ten is
that number with a zero, then I knew it equaled 80. Next, I added 80 to sixty.
First, I added forty to sixty to get one hundred, and then I added the remaining forty to get one hundred forty. Well, the 140th block is a bit far, so I wondered if I would go to the 100th block and 40 blocks west (that is not even
past Cicero since I know that Cicero is 52 blocks west), so I would be willing
to go to Cicero & 100th. So I continued on to 15 miles.
Since I already figured out that ten miles equals 80 blocks, I calculated
five more miles and I know that 8 times 5 equals 40. So 80+40, I know that
8+4= 12 and 0+0=0, so 12 and 0 is 120. Would I be willing to travel 120
blocks? Let’s see. I live on the 60th block, so I added 60 to 120. I know that
12+6 is 18 and attaching the zero brings us to the 180th block. I would be
willing to travel to 115th block south. The remaining blocks I would want to
travel west. Ten more to 115 would be 125, so 20 more would be 135, 30
more would be 145, 40 more would be 155. Fifty more would be 165, sixty
more would be 175, and so five more would bring us to 180. Sixty and five, or
65 tells me how many blocks I would travel west. As I mentioned before, Cicero is 52 blocks west, and 65 blocks is only a few more west. 115th &
beyond Cicero seems far enough from my house. I would not want tot travel
any farther, so I selected 15 miles.
After I finally selected a primary care physician, I noticed that their office was on the 94th block and 20th block (Western). I wondered how many
miles? First, I subtracted sixty from 94, 9–6 is 3, 4–0=4 so 34. I added 34
and 20. I know timetables up to 12, I know that 8 times 7 is 56, which is too
much. So 8 times 6 is 48. It takes two more to get to 50, and 54 is 4 more
that fifty. So, 4 and 2 is 6. The office is 7 miles and 6 blocks away from my
house. Hmmm, it doesn’t seem that far!
Figure 1. Finding a primary care physician using Chicago’s city block system.
In Figure 2, a student discussed the cost of zoned parking meters in downtown Chicago. The zoned meter system is not made explicit on the machines
themselves, but it is essential that visitors and natives alike negotiate it to avoid
parking tickets. The mathematics involved included addition, subtraction, multip-
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
84
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
lication, and division with whole numbers as well as multiplication with decimals.
Working with money, specifically, is also part of the measurement strand of the
NCTM Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000).
Math Everywhere
This week math was involved a lot in my life. Most of the time I didn’t realize I
was using math at the moment but quickly recognized that math was being
used in my daily routines. A friend and I were walking down Kedzie Street
and there were meters that read “Zone 6” and I asked her what “Zone 6”
meant and we both didn’t know the answer. However, we figured that it had
something to do with number of hours or minutes one quarter gives. We
thought that the zoning had to do with time and money because there are
certain places in the city that give you more or less amount of time for one
quarter. So we quickly changed the subject up to how much money we
thought could be spent on one meter daily. We knew that on Kedzie, one
quarter gave you an hour and there are obviously twenty-four hours in a day.
So to figure out how much money could be deposited into the meter on any
given day, we multiplied twenty four times 25 cents. I couldn’t think of the
product of twenty four times 25, but twenty times 25 gave me 500. I then multiplied 4 times 25 which gave me a hundred and I added the two which gave
me 600. Finally, I moved the decimal over two places because the twentyfive was in cents not dollars. So after moving the decimal over two places to
the left, we got $6. That particular “Zone 6” meter on any given day could
have up to $6 in quarters deposited into it. We then talked about how for different meter zonings more money could be deposited since less time is given
for one quarter. The methods I took to solve this problem were convenient
because a lot of mental math was done. However, we made an error because there are certain times in the day when money does not need to be
deposited. So we would have to subtract those amounts from the original total of $6.
Figure 2. Feeding parking meters in a downtown center.
Finally, in Figure 3, a student wanted to determine how much topsoil to buy
to cover a 1.5' border surrounding her 8' x 8' yard. This problem involved using
algebraic and geometric thinking along with computing with whole numbers,
fractions, and decimals. This problem is relevant to an urban lifestyle because of
the ways city-dwellers must often harvest their space if they have a yard and
would like to enjoy any part of it as a garden.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
85
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
Figure 3. Buying topsoil for a city garden.
Structured Discussions
Discussion 1. The first structured discussion (week 2) lasted for 30 minutes
and all 23 students contributed to the conversation. A total of 36 comments were
coded and distributed to reflect the findings in Table 1: 61% of the preservice
teachers expressed initial beliefs that constructivism was not an appropriate instructional approach for urban elementary mathematics students, 26% were undecided, and 13% believed it was appropriate. Reasons they gave to support their
negative reactions fell primarily into three categories. The first was urban students’ apathy toward learning: ―Those students don’t want to learn, and so trying
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
86
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
to engage them in discussions about their own thinking in order to reflect on it is
not realistic. The conversations would never get started.‖ The second and most
popular reason for why urban students are not suitable candidates for constructivist learning environments was illustrated by the following comment made by a
mature, Latina:
Urban kids need more structure and discipline than that. There’s no way a group of
kids at my school would stay on task if the teacher put them in groups and told them
to solve a problem without step-by-step instructions for how to do it. They’d start
throwing things or pulling out their cell phones.
The final reason was that ―students don’t have the background knowledge they
need to build new knowledge.‖
Those who were undecided about the value of constructivism for urban
children fell into two categories. Some admitted that they did not really understand the scope and application of constructivism prior to my lecture and were
reconsidering their understanding of it before deciding on their position. While
others admitted that they had never thought about constructivism in the context of
mathematics education before because all of their experience with the term had
been with literacy or science education. Furthermore, their incoming model for
teaching mathematics was one that focused on a textbook that essentially stipulated what and how they would teach.
Finally, preservice teachers who believed from the beginning that constructivism was the best approach to teaching mathematics in urban schools supported
it as a framework for instruction in general, and it was already a part of their
evolving philosophy on teaching.
Table 1
Number of Preservice Teachers’ With Each Incoming and Outgoing
Perspective per Structured Discussion
Discussion
Discussion 1
Initial Perspectives
Initial
No
Initial
Undecided
Initial
Yes
14 (61%)
6 (26%)
3 (13%)
Outgoing Perspectives
Discussion 2
Outgoing
No
Outgoing
Undecided
Outgoing
Yes
0
7 (30%)
16 (70%)
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
87
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
Discussion 2. The second discussion (week 10) also lasted 30 minutes and
all 23 students contributed. A total of 32 remarks were coded and attributed to
individual students. As recorded in Table 2, at the end of the quarter, zero students disagreed with the idea of constructivism as a guide for instructional practice for urban children. Thirty percent were undecided and 70% agreed with it.
Ultimately, 74% of students changed their perspectives. The three students who
began the quarter supporting constructivism for urban children remained committed to it. Of the original six who were undecided, three remained so. Four students
moved from not originally believing in the value of constructivism for urban
children to being undecided, three went from being undecided to agreeing with
the notion, and 10 students went from not agreeing with it to agreeing with it.
Table 2
Number of Preservice Teachers per Reasons for Changing Perspectives
Reason for Change
Discussion
Discussion 2
MIEL Alone
MIEL
+ FE*
MIEL + CD**
MIEL + CD
+ FE
3
5
2
7
Note: FE indicates ―Field Experience‖; CD indicates ―Class Discussion.‖
All preservice teachers who reported a change in attitude included the MIEL
assignment as a factor in their final perspective. Table 2 itemizes the number of
preservice teachers who reported a change in perspective per reason or reasons for
change. Three cited only their experiences with the MIEL as homework and as an
in-class activity as the main reason for changing their perspective. For instance, a
White woman who came into the class believing she knew everything she needed
to know mathematically for teaching and only needed instructional strategies said:
Every week when we did the [MIEL] in class I would look around and always be
sure that my way of solving the problem was the right way and that my classmates
would see why. Then, every week that just wasn’t true. Other people would share
their work and have answers that made sense and that other people even understood
better than how I did it. I learned so much from that about teaching. I can’t always
believe that my way is the right way or the only way. I have to be able to listen to
others and be open to how they solve problems otherwise my students won’t relate
to me and won’t learn from me. I never thought before about needing to figure out
how other people do math, especially kids. I figured if it wasn’t familiar it wasn’t
right.
Two preservice teachers attributed their changes to a combination of the
class discussions and the MIEL. Representing this change is the following from a
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
88
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
White female student who went from not seeing the value of constructivism for
all learners to appreciating it:
In the beginning I really tried to think about the types of students that [constructivism] would and would not be suitable for. The more we talked about it though and
the more we did each other’s and our own Everyday Math assignments, I started to
think that as long as something is approached in an appropriate manner, it can be
suitable for any class, anywhere, any age.
Five attributed their change to a combination of the MIEL and their field
experiences. A representative remark from these students was the following, spoken by a White man:
I am doing my clinical in a 2nd grade classroom at [an urban school]. In the beginning I couldn’t imagine how I would use any of the constructivist stuff we were
learning about. Students seemed so out of control. Then, my cooperating teacher
gave me a small group of students struggling with multiplication. I decided to try
some of what we talk about in class. I asked them if they ever had to multiply in real
life. They said just for homework. Then I told them how I had to multiply that morning to know how many counters I needed to bring for them. After that, the students
wanted to find times in their lives that they used multiplication.
Seven preservice teachers attributed their change in perspective to a combination of the MIEL, their field Experiences, and class discussions. For example,
the following quote came from a Latina student who began the quarter not supporting the idea of constructivism for urban children because she believed they
needed much more structure and discipline than she perceived a constructivistinfluenced classroom could provide:
When you first asked us what we thought about constructivism for urban students I
thought no way. Even listening to my classmates who thought it was a good idea
didn’t convince me. I’ve done a lot of my hours in urban classrooms and all of my
teachers just give worksheets and tell kids to answer the problems how they were
just shown. Then, I got really interested in [my classmate’s] garden problem. I love
gardening but found it harder than I expected to explain my solution even though I
have to solve these sorts of problems a lot. I also know the kids just did area and perimeter in math. For my lesson I brought in soil and seeds and asked students if they
could figure out how big of a box we need to make an indoor garden on the science
table. I had them sketch different possibilities asking them to maximize and minimize the perimeter and the area. They were so into it and didn’t finish the lesson.
They asked if they could finish the next day. I’m not sure if they thought they were
doing math because they weren’t doing a worksheet, but they were doing math in a
big way.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
89
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
Results from Written Work
Weekly contributions. In the first half of the quarter, seven students
brought up the issue of constructivism for urban settings in their Weekly Contributions—all in the form of a question and coded as undecided. For example, one
student who was placed in an inner city school wrote the following: ―Should I be
trying to use constructivism with the students in my placement? They just stare at
me if I ask them what they think rather than giving them an answer or referring
them to an example in their textbook like their teacher does. I don’t think they’re
ready for it.‖
In the second half of the quarter, however, 17 preservice teachers brought
up the topic in their Weekly Contributions, and 10 of those referred specifically to
the MIEL in some way. These contributions were all coded as ―OY‖ or leaving
the quarter with a positive view of constructivism for urban students. Eight of
these Weekly Contributions were about planning for an upcoming lesson and
wanting to talk about developing ―a constructivist lesson to give kids something
different and to challenge them in new ways.‖ Seven of those eight referred specifically to somehow wanting to incorporate a ―real-world situation, like we do
for our Everyday Math assignment.‖ The nine remaining Weekly Contributions
were from students who wanted to share a teaching experience in which they tried
to use constructivist principles to plan for and implement the lesson. Even students whose lessons ―failed‖ in their eyes were mindful of how difficult a new
teaching style can be for students and teachers alike. And how it is
important to remember that this is a process. I can see that I didn’t like doing math
like this in the beginning and it took time to really get why it was helpful and important. I think instruction like this has to be the norm from the very beginning of the
year. I don’t think it is at [my urban] school.
Justifying Pedagogical Choices. All 23 preservice teachers had to plan a
lesson and justify their choice of pedagogy. Fifteen of them planned for a lesson
based in constructivist theory. The remaining eight did not either because their
cooperating teachers wanted them to teach something directly from the class textbook, or because they were afraid to deviate from the teacher’s methods for fear
of losing students’ attention and respect. Thirteen of the 23 preservice teachers
were placed in schools with predominately low-income, African American or Latina/o populations. Of those 13, eight planned for constructivist-based lessons and
five did not for the same reasons just mentioned. The comments that follow are
exclusively from those students who were in urban schools. Essentially, the preservice teachers who were in urban settings and planned for constructivistinfluenced lessons said they did so because they wanted to experience it as a
teacher and not just as a learner, and/or because they wanted to try to motivate
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
90
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
what were in their eyes apathetic or disinterested students. For instance, an African American woman shared the following:
For my lesson I am going to use constructivism. I am going to ask kids if they’ve
ever heard of the word probability and what they think it means and when they
think it’s used. Then I’m going to give them a real situation where probability is
important and see if they can solve the problem. I want to try not to just give them a
definition of it and then give them problems to do. I’m not sure how this will go
over because I have never heard the teacher ask their opinions about math or to tell
her something she hasn’t told them first. I’m nervous but I’m also excited to try this
and to give the kids a different experience.
As noted, preservice teachers who did not plan for a constructivist-oriented
lesson were either given the pages from a textbook to cover, or were anxious
about students’ and their cooperating teachers’ reactions to an unfamiliar instructional style. A mature, White woman, wrote:
I have been taught throughout my studies that often times when schools and students are not meeting state standards, their teachers feel pressure to teach their students through textbooks and worksheets and drills. With such teaching tactics employed, students are more apt to memorize a topic temporarily than they are to gain
any deeper understanding of the subject matter. This is not how I want to end up
teaching, but this is how my teacher teaches and what the kids are used to. I am
going to do the lesson my teacher gave me and teach how she usually does but also
think about how I would change it if I were the actual teacher.
Final reflective essay. In the final, reflective essay assignment, 13 preservice teachers who admitted to initially believing that urban children were illsuited for a constructivist-influenced pedagogy reconsidered this position after
having a placement in an urban classroom and planning for and teaching a lesson
in such a setting. This change occurred not only for preservice teachers who were
able to teach using constructivist principles but also for those who did not:
I wish I had been able to teach about equalities in a way other than what was in the
book. The kids weren’t engaged and I had to keep reminding them of which way to
put the ―mouth of the alligator.‖ I think that if they had been able to come up with
their own ways of remembering how to put the signs and why, the whole lesson
would have had a different feel and a different outcome. I wish I had taken more
risks with the teacher and the students.
Twelve of these 13 students also referred to the MIEL as a significant influence in their changing perspective. For example, early in the quarter many skeptical students cited chronic off-task and recalcitrant behavior in urban children as
an impediment to a successful constructivist classroom. Four students wrote specifically about this belief and replaced it with the perspective that such traits like-
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
91
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
ly stem from a disconnect between child and curriculum rather than a demographic identifier. For example, a Latina preservice teacher who was undecided in her
initial remarks in Discussion 1 because she did not believe the students in her urban placement could stay interested in a problem for any prolonged period of
time, wrote the following:
I learned a lot about the importance of children connecting with what they’re learning. I am at [an inner city] school, and I wish my students could do our weekly math
assignment. They just don’t see why they have to learn math. When I saw my
classmate’s example of figuring out how far she needed to walk from the [subway]
station to the concert in [the] park, I thought that would be a great problem for my
students….The school is right there! I see now that teaching from a textbook is boring for these students because it has no purpose. It scares me to think about teaching
in the city without a textbook, but now I see how important it is to have the students
learn in constructivist ways.
A different student, whose initial beliefs were also undecided because of his desire for a textbook that would structure and guide his teaching, wrote the following summarizing what he had learned about teaching and learning elementary mathematics:
I never thought that ―real-world‖ problems needed to be changed for different students. The ―real world‖ is the real world, isn’t it? ...It never occurred to me that
word problems used in textbooks could be so far removed from so many students’
lives. For the first time, I see why constructivism, and having students use their own
situations, strategies and problems, would actually be better than using a textbook.
Everybody has a different reality.
Discussion
The data reported here describe the constructivist teaching and learning experiences one group of preservice teachers had with the MIEL assignments and
how they interacted with them and other aspects of the methods course to change
their attitudes and perceptions about the pedagogical needs of urban elementary
mathematics students. However, I see the present findings as reflecting the sort of
learning paths preservice teachers consistently report and demonstrate from quarter to quarter. This finding is not surprising given that the biases preservice teachers brought to the methods course were consistent with what literature tells us
more generally about the beliefs of teachers in urban classrooms.
Preservice teachers who were initially either undecided or skeptical about
the value of constructivism for urban classrooms held many of the same conceptions research has found practicing teachers to have. For example, some preservice teachers had the incoming belief that low-income, urban children do not want
to learn. This attitude reflects the literature showing that teachers have low expec-
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
92
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
tations of urban students, which typically results in a transmission model of pedagogy that emphasizes basic skills (Zeichner, 1996). Furthermore, many of the preservice teachers’ incoming perspectives focused on their beliefs that urban children are difficult to control, present intimidating behavioral challenges, and require
more structure than a reform-based classroom can provide. This preconception
aligns with the finding that some teachers expect African American students to be
harder to control and in need of more restraint in the classroom (Ladson-Billings,
1994). It seems likely that without some sort of intervention in their teacher education program, these preservice teachers could be bound for perpetuating a ―pedagogy of poverty‖ (Haberman, 1991).
Most preservice teachers in this project acknowledged that doing the MIEL
weekly led to a reassessment of their perspectives on urban mathematics education. Some spoke about the MIEL as being the only truly constructivist-learning
opportunity they had that was not a contrived classroom experience meant to
model the sort of reform pedagogy they are encouraged to use in their own teaching. They shared their initial frustrations and ultimate appreciation for the struggles they had in finding their own learning paths and constructing their own understandings not only about mathematics but also about pedagogy. These authentic experiences seemed to highlight and instantiate many of the pedagogical impediments urban teachers and students routinely face.
For example, one paradigm for change was reconsidering the role of a textbook for urban students’ mathematics education. Many of the preservice teachers
came in assuming that a textbook would provide the scope and sequence for their
curriculum and that their role in planning for content and pedagogy would be minimal. However, for many of these students, doing the MIELs and developing
confidence with doing, owning, and explaining mathematics was transformative.
Thus, they came to appreciate the importance of all children connecting with curriculum in personal and authentic ways. This epiphany was relevant to preservice
teachers’ attitudes toward teaching children of all demographics. However, it was
especially true for their attitudes toward teaching urban children, who most often
do not relate to the traditional examples, analogies, and artifacts found in mainstream textbooks (Ninnes, 2000).
This revelation about the need for children to experience a curriculum in
authentic ways also had an effect on preservice teachers’ initial belief that urban
children are far too recalcitrant and difficult to thrive in a constructivist learning
environment. This seemed to come about because many of the preservice teachers
shared that they initially felt ―marginalized‖ from the methods course curriculum,
including the MIEL assignment, because it was not what they expected and they
were frustrated by not being told how and what to do. However, as time went on
they began to take ownership of and responsibility for their learning and their
teaching by doing their own and their classmates’ MIELs from week to week.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
93
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
Consequently, they came to understand why there would be such apathy and resistance among disenfranchised youth who generally do not connect with a textbook curriculum. That feeling of frustration and resistance would never go away.
Thus, constructivism became, as one student put it, ―not only the preferred pedagogy, but the essential one‖ for ―at-risk‖ populations.
Concluding Thoughts
In light of research literature pointing to the contrasting quality of education
accessible to students from a range of social classes, communities, and cultures,
misconceptions about reform-minded teaching and its suitability for urban mathematics classrooms need to be addressed in teacher preparation programs. Although literature, in-class learning opportunities, and field experiences are critical
to this education, a more concrete and personal relationship with it in general and
urban children’s authentic mathematical environments in particular need to be facilitated. Here, a weekly assignment asking students to share, discuss, and explain
their day-to-day encounters with mathematics appeared to be influential in fostering at least a rudimentary change in preservice teachers’ beliefs about the value of
constructivism as a framework for reform in urban elementary mathematics classrooms.
Most of the preservice teachers discussed here made a conceptual shift and
came to appreciate that a student population does not frame or limit the efficacy
of or need for reform pedagogy. Rather, it is a teacher’s commitment to providing
an environment that supports rich, conceptual learning opportunities and a direct
connection to the mathematics explored that determines a successful school mathematics program. Consequently, they ultimately expressed informed opinions
about coming to see constructivism as a model for how people learn and develop
regardless of race, class, gender, domicile, or any other demographic descriptor.
In effect, the experience of being a constructivist learner in the context of the
MIELs was significant for recognizing the value and impact of constructivism for
all: ―Using the weekly math discussions to examine how I looked at math was
very helpful. [The] additional perspectives I got [from] my classmates really
helped me too…I learned that constructivism benefits [us all].‖
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by grants from the Lessons in Courage Initiative and by the Faculty
Development Committee, in the College of Education, DePaul University.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
94
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
References
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban education reform. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Artzt, A., & Armour-Thomas, E. (2002). Becoming a reflective mathematics teacher. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Berry, R. Q., III. (2003). Mathematics standards, cultural styles, and learning preferences: The
plight and the promise of African American students. Clearing House, 76, 244–250.
Bollinger, D. (2006). Creating constructivist learning environments. Educational Media and
Technology Yearbook, 31, 119–126.
Breitborde, M. (2002). Lesson learned in an urban school: Preparing teachers for the educational
village. The Teacher Educator, 38(1), 34–46.
Brown, D. (2002). Becoming a successful urban teacher. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cobb, P. (2006). Mathematics learning as a social process. In J. Maas & W. Schlöglmann (Eds.),
New mathematics education research and practice (pp. 147–152). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research in education. London, United Kingdom:
Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in
the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Ebby, C. (2000). Learning to teach mathematics differently: The interaction between coursework
and fieldwork for preservice teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 69–
97.
Fitzgerald, W., & Bouck, M. (1993). Models of instruction. In D. T. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas
for the classroom middle grades mathematics. New York: Macmillan.
Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practices.
In F. Lester (Ed.), The second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Gilbert, S. L. (1997). The ―four commonplaces of teaching‖: Prospective teachers’ beliefs about
teaching in urban schools. The Urban Review, 29, 81–96.
Gravemeijer, K. (1997). Commentary solving word problems: A case of modeling. Learning and
Instruction, 7, 389–397.
Griffin, S., Case, R., & Siegler, R. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In K McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 25–
49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73,
290–294.
Haberman, M. (2005). Star teachers: The ideology and best practice of effective teachers of diverse children and youth in poverty. Houston, TX: The Haberman Educational Foundation.
Harrington, R., & Enochs, L. (2009). Accounting for preservice teachers’ constructivist learning
environment experiences. Learning Environment Research, 12, 45–65.
Heuser, D. (2005). Teaching without telling: Computational fluency and understanding through
invention. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11, 404–412.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
95
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin,
& D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons from
the TIMSS video study. Elementary School Journal, 101, 3–20.
Jepsen, B. (2009). Constructivism, who is it right for? Unpublished manuscript.
Kalchman, M. (2009). Using the mathematics we do everyday. Teaching Children Mathematics,
15, 532–539.
Klein, M. (1998). Constructivist practice in preservice teacher education in mathematics:
(Re)producing and affirming status quo? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1).
75–86.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers for African-American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). It doesn’t add up: African American students’ mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 12–22.
Lampert, M. (2003). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Laurenco, O., & Machado, A. (1996). In defense of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, 103, 143–164.
Lubienski, S. T. (2002). Research, reform and equity in mathematics education. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 4, 103–125.
McKinney, S. E., Chapell, S., Berry, R. Q., & Hickman, B. T. (2009). An examination of the instructional practices of mathematics in urban schools. Prevention of School Failure, 53,
278–285.
McNair, R. (2000). Life outside the mathematics classroom: Implications of mathematics teaching
reform. Urban Education, 34, 550–570.
Merseth, K. (1993). How old is the shepherd?: An essay about mathematics education. Phi Delta
Kappan, 74, 548–554.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Ninnes, P. (2000). Representations of indigenous knowledge in secondary school science textbooks in Australia and Canada. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 603–617.
Okamoto, Y., Brenner, M. E., & Curtis, R. (2002). Numeracy and culture. In J. M. Cooper, S. R.
Goldman, S. P. Heyneman, J. E. Koppich, & C. Kridel (Eds.), The encyclopedia of education (pp. 1563–1566). New York: Macmillan.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence. (M. C. Cook, Trans.) NY: International Universities
Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Spillane, J. P., & J. S. Zeuli. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the
context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 21, 1–27.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
96
Kalchman
Changing Conceptions
Steele, D., & Widman, T. (1997). Practitioner’s research: A study in changing preservice teachers’
conceptions about mathematics and mathematics teaching and learning. School Science and
Mathematics, 97, 184–191.
Steinberg, S., & Kincheloe, J. (Eds.). (2004). 19 urban questions: Teaching in the city. New York:
Peter Lang.
Strutchens, M. E., & Silver, E. A. (2000). NAEP findings regarding race/ethnicity: The students,
their performance, and their classrooms. In E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenney (Eds.), Results
from the seventh mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (pp. 45–72). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Sundberg, S. E., & Goodman, T. A. (2005). Incorporating spatial ability instruction in teacher
preparation. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 11, 28–34.
Sutton, J., & Krueger, A. (Eds.). (2002). EDThoughts: What we know about mathematics teaching
and learning. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walker, E. (2007). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of mathematics education in urban schools.
The Urban Review, 39, 519–540.
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (1997). An in-depth study of a teacher engaged in an innovative primary science trial professional development project. Research in Science Education, 27,
51–69.
Webb, P. K. (1980). Piaget: Implications for teaching. Theory Into Practice, 19, 93–97.
Zeichner, K. M. (1996). Educating teachers to close the achievement gap: Issues of pedagogy,
knowledge, and teacher preparation. In B. Williams (Ed.). Closing the achievement gap: A
vision for changing beliefs and practices (pp, 56–76). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision, Curriculum and Development.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 4, No. 1
97